Subject: RE: [NGO] DM alignment

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:37:51 -0500

Hi Andy,

I would like to make a request. I believe it is critically important
you are understandable by contributors to the mailing list, especially
when describing the problems that need to resolved. Please be
conscious of your usage of slang and idiomatic references.

The "gumball problem" and the "peek/poke" problem are two you use a
lot.

If you did not grow up in the US, you may not know what the old
gumball vending machine looked like; even if you do, that doesn't mean
you will understand what the gumball *problem* is, since it has
nothing to do with gumballs. Can we change this to the "unpredictable
input" problem?

If you never programmed in BASIC, you may not know that peek/poke
refer to BASIC commands to look at a memory location or set a memory
location. Can we change this to the "too low-level command" problem,
or the "simplistic verb" problem?

In this thread, you raise this issue:
> On the NMS side, there is the "can't get there from here" problem.

I worked on NMS applications for more than ten years, and I have no
idea what the "can't get there from here" problem refers to. 

Can you please avoid slang, and choosing little idiomatic naming
practicesa that are meaningful to you, but may not mean the same thing
to others, and may not be understandable to those who come to the
discussion late?

I am especially sensitive to this since my team has engineers from
China who have great difficulty understanding what you are talking
about because of your English expressions, and I have to keep
translating your messages for them (they don't generally have problems
with other peoples' messages). 

I imagine there are many others who would like to contribute to the
NGO and netconf discussions, but have great difficulty with your
idioms. 

Dbh

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:28:29 -0800

> The "gumball problem" and the "peek/poke" problem are two you use a

Sorry.  You use peek/poke more than me :-)

Gumball problem:

The CLI world uses a command-at-a-time concept.
Once the parser has started a command, it expects
very specific additional input (the parameters) to complete that command.
The SNMP world is varbind-based, and the protocol allows
commands and their parameters to be mixed together randomly,
and split across multiple PDUs randomly.  The agent has to
reconstruct the intended operations, reserve and release resources
in complex ways, and generally do more work than the CLI.

> nothing to do with gumballs. Can we change this to the "unpredictable

I didn't know gumball vending machines were rare outside the US.
How about "atomized, random-order input problem" :-)

> or the "simplistic verb" problem?

Yes, since we are naming problems, and the "simplistic verb" problem
is first in line.

> to others, and may not be understandable to those who come to the

Okay, sorry you have not heard that term.
It means that the information you are seeking is available,
(e.g., SNMP counters) but not to the protocol you are using
(e.g., Netconf).  So with your tools, you can't get there from here.
Actually, a simple hack like this isn't really worth standardizing.
It's just so easy to do, that 10 different vendor versions will probably
show up eventually.

> NGO and netconf discussions, but have great difficulty with your

I was not trying to define technical terms like I was
writing a draft.  The gumball machine and peek/poke terms have
been used in the NM area for years, so I can't really apologize
too much for those.  I'm sorry if "can't get there from here"
was improper terminology.  I should have said "protocol access
incompatibility" problem instead.

> Dbh

Andy

---

From: Joe Fernandez <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:30:49 +1100

This from the guy who just said : ".. the text from
the various RFC341x RFCs surrounding registrations is pretty funky..."

:-)

>NGO and netconf discussions, but have great difficulty with your

Joe Fernandez
Kardinia Software
[email-masked]
www.kardinia.com

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:12:50 -0500

You're right.
And I decided to test how babelfish would handle it, so I translated
"funky" into Chinese and back. 
The results: "funky" = "plain", certainly not what I meant ;-)
I am glad to have my text serve as an example of why slang should be
avoided.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:31 PM
> To: David Harrington; 'Andy Bierman'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NGO] DM alignment
>

---

From: Joe Fernandez <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:45:05 +1100

>The results: "funky" = "plain", certainly not what I meant ;-)

Plainly not.

Fortunately most readers would know you were referring to 429 pages that 
specify what we continue to call the SIMPLE Network Management Protocol and 
would realize that "funky" must therefore mean something like 
"demonstrating chutzpah".

Right? :-)

Joe Fernandez
Kardinia Software
[email-masked]
www.kardinia.com